The point I outlined in my post is one that I have seen people who are not vocal advocates of GMO utter. It's a perfectly regular piece of reasoning and not "irrational subtext". I'd go so far as to say the irrational subtext here might be the fact that it is seen as some sort of personal failing to question something which would be very convenient if it was entirely safe (and was known to be safe).

Just because it is convenient and it works well in the areas that we can measure well does not mean it is actually safe or that we should embrace it uncritically.

No, it's an irrational subtext, since it "proves too much". Taken at face value, it stops all technological change. Since technological change has been enormously successful, the argument is obviously bullshit.

The sly move is to try to apply this "don't do it" principle to only GMOs (or some limited set of hot button topics that includes GMOs). This selective application is where the unreason slips in.

You have reduced my reasoning to ridiculousness by extrapolating it to a degree that I find to be frankly insane. My point was that we do not understand the field well and thus should not make sweeping changes because we can't understand the consequences. My next point was that this is a coherent stance even if it gets in the way of easy progress.

Frankly from your response I cannot find a reason to change my mind on this, because you have mostly avoided the subject by attacking my reasoning with your own flawed logic. I find it ironic that you are saying that people who advocate a more conservative stance on GMO are unreasoning or spouting "obvious bullshit" when what is in fact happening is that you are doing exactly what I already addressed: Being upset that this reasoning stops progress in a field you don't understand well, because it is inconvenient.